How can religion be evil?

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

"The cosmological argument"

Please stay on topic, your attempts do move the goal posts or change subject has become wearisome and predictably inane.

YOU began this thread, the topic morality.

Cognostic's picture
There is no EVIDENCE in the

There is no EVIDENCE in the cosmological argument. There you go demonstrating your lack of education. There is nothing in the cosmological argument that can be called EVIDENCE. From it's first point to its' last it violates everything we know about the laws of science and logic.

1. Everything that exists has a cause. You do understand this argument was first used by Aristotle to prove the existence of Zeus. Next... Who or what is Kalam? I know you are too dense to have ever asked that question. Doesn't the word sound ISLAMIC?

It's a word from the frigging Quaaran used to justify the existence of Allah. Are you switching religions on us. "The Arabic term Kalām means "speech, word, utterance" among other things, and its use regarding Islamic theology is derived from the expression "Word of God" (Kalām Allāh) found in the Qur'an"

IN SHORT: This argument is used by the ignorant to justify any god. (It actually justifies no God or gods at all and only asserts that there was once a beginning. NOT A FIRST CAUSE AND NOT A GOD.) You can not get from a beginning or even a first beginning to a god using this argument. It has just been re popularized once again by that PEDANTIC IDIOT WLC and all the little religious Minions think it is Great Shit. IT'S NOT!!! If everything has a cause, you do not get to stop at the big bang. The universe did not pop into existence at the Big Bang.

2. The universe began to exist. HOW IN THE FK DO YOU KNOW THAT? All we know is that there was once a hot dense mass or a singularity and then it began to expand. We call this expansion the "BIG BANG," though it is not a Bang, and it is not a theory of COSMOLOGY (Creation of the universe.) It is a theory of the expansion of the universe, There is nothing in this argument that asserts the Bang (expansion) could not have come from natural causes. There is nothing in the argument that asserts the Bang's (expansion's) cause did not have a cause. The Cosmological argument is lame from top to bottom.

3. It does not follow that the universe has a cause.

BUT! LET'S BE FUCKING GENEROUS. Let's assume you have a brain between your ears and the universe was caused. The Cosmological argument says NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THAT CAUSE. NOTHING. The cause could be COMPLETELY NATURAL. THE CAUSE COULD HAVE A CAUSE. THE CAUSE COULD BE ANY ONE OF A MILLION GODS. THE CAUSE COULD BE SPACE ALIENS. THE CAUSE COULD BE BLUE UNIVERSE CREATING BUNNY RABBITS. HOW DID YOU RULE OUT OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT UNIVERSE CREATING BLUE BUNNY RABBITS?

There is nothing in the Cosmological Argument that asserts a "FIRST CAUSE." For all you know, again only assuming you inane conclusion that the universe had a cause, THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL THAT THE CAUSE COULD NOT HAVE A CAUSE, AND THAT CAUSE COULD HAVE A CAUSE, AND THAT CAUSE COULD HAVE A CAUSE.... There is nothing in the world of science that supports the idea that matter can come from nothing. We have no example of nothing anywhere. All matter comes from the rearrangement of matter and energy that already exists. Asserting that your God done it is 'SPECIAL PLEADING" a fallacy of logic.

You do not get to assert that everything has a cause and then stop at one of the causes because it happens to be convenient for you. THAT'S MORONIC.

The argument does not prove a "FIRST CAUSE EXISTED" and it CERTAINLY does not prove the existence of the ABRAHAMIC GOD, ZEUS, ALLAH, OR ANY OTHER FRIGGING GOD.

LogicFTW's picture
Clean up on aisle 5, AJ777

Clean up on aisle 5, AJ777 just got wrecked!

Sheldon's picture
How is that evidence for any

How is that evidence for any deity?

AJ777's picture
CyberLn, then you disagree

CyberLn, then you disagree with Stephen Hawking, and Einstein. It is a first principal, your denial of the truth of the first premise does not make it false. Sapporo, you can know beyond a reasonable doubt which we do, that the universe(space, time, matter, and energy), all came into existence at the same moment. There is ample and convincing evidence the Big Bang model of the universe is correct. If you choose to disbelieve this evidence to support your worldview some might call that a delusion.

Sapporo's picture
AJ777: CyberLn, then you

AJ777: CyberLn, then you disagree with Stephen Hawking, and Einstein. It is a first principal, your denial of the truth of the first premise does not make it false. Sapporo, you can know beyond a reasonable doubt which we do, that the universe(space, time, matter, and energy), all came into existence at the same moment. There is ample and convincing evidence the Big Bang model of the universe is correct. If you choose to disbelieve this evidence to support your worldview some might call that a delusion.

A ripple on the surface of a lake is not necessarily the earliest event in the existence of the lake.

Algebe's picture
@AJ777: There is ample and

@AJ777: There is ample and convincing evidence the Big Bang model

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Big Bang was the start of the expansion of the universe, not necessarily the start of the universe. The cause of the Big Bang, or indeed whether anything caused it, is still a mystery.

arakish's picture
Thanks, Algebe. I missed

Thanks, Algebe. I missed that in my reply below.

rmfr

AJ777's picture
Algebe, you are wrong sir
Algebe's picture
@AJ777: Algebe, you are wrong

@AJ777: Algebe, you are wrong sir.

https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/lawrence-krauss-on-looking-back-in-...

Let's try something by a real scientist, not a smarmy Christian apologist hack like William Craig.

"Before inflation, the universe was extremely small, hot and dense. It was governed by quantum mechanics, and everything was in flux."

arakish's picture
Algebe, you are wrong sir

Algebe, you are wrong sir.
https://crossexamined.org/big-bang-evidence-for-god/

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

You call that evidence?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

***real loud thump in background***

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Somebody help me. I think AJ777 found a canister of Riddler's gas.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I guess dying laughing ain't exactly the worst way to go.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
That article is the

That article is the unevidenced opinions of the author, a well known religious apologist who is quite frankly as blinkered as they come, and ithe article's religious claims are not remotely validated by any scientific evidence.

I challenge you to cite a single peer reviewed paper claiming the big bang had a supernatural cause.

David Killens's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

"There is ample and convincing evidence the Big Bang model of the universe is correct."

Your model had something coming from nothing. That is not mainstream thinking for the scientific community. Hawking embraced the no-boundary proposal. Basically he stated that once you get back to the beginning of this known universe, the concept of time becomes obsolete.

Sheldon's picture
1. First cause arguments BY

1. First cause arguments BY DEFINITION don't evidence any deity. The clue is in the title,,,
2. The law of cause and effect has only ever been evidenced within a temporal condition, so it's pure assumption it applied before the BB.
3. Neither Einstein nor Stephen Hawking believed in a first cause or a deity, so that's risible nonsense.
4. Your first premise says "everything", it's fallacious for several reasons:
a) We don't know the cause of "everything thus this going from the specific to the general in this way involves assumption - Occam's razor applies.
b) In every example we have evidenced, the cause is a natural phenomenon, so going from all of these to a supernatural cause is pure unevidenced assumption.
c) The law of cause and effect has only been observed to apply in a temporal condition, so it is also an unevidenced assumption it applies before the big bang.
d) No physicist and the scientific community as a whole supports this any of this fallacious argument.

This argument is not objective evidence by definition, and even if this risible nonsense were valid, it still doesn't evidence a deity, for that a whole new raft of assumptions are tacked on, see William Lane Craig's laughable version.

Even then then if the argument hadn't already been entirely discredited, it gets you no closer to evidencing Jesus than Zeus or Thor. Not without yet more assumptions, and by now Occam would be having a seizure, and he was a monk.

Christ tell me this plagiarised nonsense isn't the best "evidence" you can demonstrate? What a joke.

You'll be trotting out the teleological argument next. Then the argument from design, now that is a belly laugh.

Spectre of Marxism's picture
Religion is immoral because

Religion is immoral because it makes demands on man and society which are not based on anything observable. Political ideology would be the moral superior of religion [and the inheritor to its "mantle" as it were] due to the simple fact it deals with observable matters - tangibles - and based on these makes demands on men and society. Its something that anyone can argue for and against, based on what we sense, think and recall.

God falls outside these. That's why religion formulated around one is immoral. You cannot demand man and society to live by something for which there is no evidence, this is deceitful and/or arrogant [on the part of the believer] and both arrogance and deceit are not good qualities.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

then you disagree with Stephen Hawking, and Einstein. It is a first principal, your denial of the truth of the first premise does not make it false. Sapporo, you can know beyond a reasonable doubt which we do, that the universe(space, time, matter, and energy), all came into existence at the same moment. There is ample and convincing evidence the Big Bang model of the universe is correct. If you choose to disbelieve this evidence to support your worldview some might call that a delusion.

Seriously dude? Seriously?

Neither Hawking nor Einstein ever believed in the Kalam Argument. Both, in fact, disproved the Kalam Argument, demonstrably.

Again, have you ever read any book besides the Bible? So far you have proven that you have never truly read the Bible. Additionally, my assessment of you age just continues to drop as well as IQ points. And this is not a true ad hominem, just my opinion.

{removed text objectionable to a mod}

Why don't you actually do some research. Remember me saying I have traveled all over this world for over 30 years to study and research many religions, but mostly focusing into the two greatest lynchpins of the Christian faith, The Noahacian Flood Myth and The Exodus That Went Nowhere. How much research have you done? Googling the cheat codes for Fortnite?

Let's look at the Kalam Argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

First, you have to prove that everything has a beginning. At best, this is unfalsifiable.

2. The universe began to exist.

Did it? Are you sure it has not existed for eternity? Can you prove it has not existed for eternity? Again, unfalsifiable.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

If everything has cause, then please explain how quantum particles can just pop into and out of existence without any cause. This alone disproves this final statement.

Try again.

rmfr

AJ777's picture
arakish, where and when did

arakish, where and when did hawking land Einstein disprove the Kalām argument? Quantum particles appearing and disappearing does not mean that this occurs without a cause. It only means you don’t know what the cause is. The steady state model of the universe is not a theory that is supported by the evidence. A first principal is common sense.

David Killens's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

Hawking disproved the Kalam cosmological argument with this lecture in which he describes his no-boundary proposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcTASYcP14&t=9s

This is a quick overview of this no-boundary proposal ... https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/famous-scientists/physicist...

Sheldon's picture
If you don't know the cause

If you don't know the cause then you can't rationally assert it has a cause, or what that cause might be if there is one, thus you are making two assumptions, and a third assumption that it is your version of the deity you choose to believe is real.

A first principle is assumption not common sense, and having assumed it with no evidence to then make an exception for your deity again without any evidence is called a special pleading fallacy.

And before you start making a raft of unevidenced assumption about the characteristics of your deity to try and define it into existence as part of your argument, that would be a begging the question fallacy.

No argument that contains a fallacy can be asserted as rationally true. This is a deeply flawed argument, and does not remotely represent objective evidence. This argument is debunked on here almost on a weekly basis, you clearly haven't researched any of the criticisms of it if you think it is valid, but then you strike me as particularly biased, as most theists tend to be of course. It;s not called faith for nothing.

Cognostic's picture
When are you going to read

When are you going to read your frigging responses. The Kalam is not an argument for anything. Whether or not there is a cause does not even matter. THE FACT is that you do not get to insert your god as a cause and if everything has a cause you do not get to assert your God does not have a cause. You are engaged in "THE GOD OF THE GAPS" and "SPECIAL PLEADING."

The Kalam argument also has an equivocation fallacy.

During premise 2 the argument uses a SCIENTIFIC definition of UNIVERSE. (All matter, space and time.) The scientific assertion means that things began to exist in the way they exist now. This definition says NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL PRIOR TO PANCK TIME. NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THINGS EXISTING BEFORE THEY BEGAN TO EXIST THE WAY THEY EXIST NOW. Science unlike religion does not assert what they do not know without feeling really embarrassed for doing so.

In premise 3 it uses a colloquial or theological definition (Everything that exists and has existed or will exist.) Science is not saying anything began from nothing or that where was or was not a cause before anything. The only person asserting that there was NOTHING prior to the big band is the theologian. They magically create nothing, assert that the universe could not have come from it, and then insert their god.

DO YOU READ A SINGLE POST PRESENTED TO YOU OR DO THE HAMSTERS IN YOUR HEAD JUST KEEP SPINNING ROUND AND ROUND ON THAT LITTLE WHEEL?

AJ777's picture
A theory based on no evidence

A theory based on no evidence is not sufficient to disprove a model with evidence.

Sheldon's picture
"A theory based on no

"A theory based on no evidence is not sufficient to disprove a model with evidence."

Wow, irony overload.

Cognostic's picture
Another equivocation fallacy.

Another equivocation fallacy. Do you know how to write a sentence without engaging in fallacious arguments?

A theory based on no evidence. "There is no such thing." You are using the colloquial definition of theory, meaning only thought or idea to assert the Scientific definition (A body of facts and evidence) is somehow flawed. In science there is no such thing as a theory without evidence, this would be a hypothesis. Colloquially a theory is just an idea or a thought and can have no evidence. Using theory this way would be like calling the God hypothesis a theory. Utter nonsense.

A THEORY is a MODEL. That is what science does. It takes in all the facts and evidence and then builds a model to explain as much of what is known as is possible. When new information is discovered the model may be altered. Look at the distinction between Newton's Gravity and Einstein's Gravity. Both are completely correct and yet they explain things differently. They each have their use in scientific exploration. They are both Scientifically Accepted Models for Gravity in the universe and both are equally supported by facts and examples. Furthermore, these are not the only "Theories" There are others but they tend to be more cumbersome to use. Occam's razor asserts "The simplest is the best."

AJ777's picture
Hawking also has said “

Hawking also has said “ because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, which only proves that even a genius can believe ridiculous ideas. https://www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/stephen-hawking-and-god

David Killens's picture
Oh my, referencing an

Oh my, referencing an obviously theist web site like RIZM is not evidence.

I read the article and it is full of holes and flaws. Neither you or the author really comprehend what Hawking was talking about.

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 20:21

Tue, 01/08/2019 - 20:21
AJ777
"even a genius can believe ridiculous ideas. "

Indeed, like Newton believing in vapid superstition like astrology, alchemy, and of course christianity.

Though I think neither you or the author you cited properly understand the late Professor Hawking's article. I'd be inclined to accept his work if it withstands scientific scrutiny, especially over a disgruntled theist ranting denials of facts supported by objective evidence, which they feel contradict their vapid and unevidenced superstitious beliefs.

Sheldon's picture
That article is risible from

That article is risible from start to finish. Lennox might be a great mathematician but he's clearly out of his depth there. I lost count of his unevidenced assertions, not surprising really since he offered no tangible evidence at all. His main thrust which he dropped in relentlessly and entirely unabashed was a risible and fallacious assertion that everything must have a cause.......Except his deity of course. One wonders that theists never see the irony of this special pleading fallacy aimed at a scientific hypothesis.

ThIs of course is always the problem when halfway credible scientists and academics attack scientific hyothesise based not on their field of expertise, but on their vapid superstitious beliefs.

It never fails to have theists who don't understand the difference parroting their claims in a text book appeal to authority fallacy, as AJ777 has done here again. No surprise really as he seems only capable of repeating the thoughts of others. Though oddly not when those thoughts have some scientific basis, only when they support his own blind faith based beliefs or he thinks there's mileage in the name of the originator...hence the appeal to authority fallacy.

By all means point out scientific flaws in Professor Hawking's hypothesis, but "I prefer to believe goddidit using unexplained magic from an unevidenced bronze age deity" isn't a scientific objection. Whereas pointing out a hypothesis works without unevidenced magic from a supernatural bronze age deity should be redundant for any scientist worthy of the name.

You are not evidencing a deity by attacking ideas that exclude it as a belief that is not required and not evidenced. It's the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just look at the risible 38 page polemic from that idiotic creationist who doesn't have the first clue of the vast scientific theory and the evidence it contains, that he's attacking based solely on it showing that human life evolved without any need for a deity creator.

He can't grasp that were the entire field of biology reversed and evolution falsified, it would not make creationism remotely valid as there is no evidence for this superstitious myth, none.

Lennox at least is intelligent enough to know better. So it's doubly sad to see an academic make this fallacious argument and claim to have logic and philosophy on their side.

arakish's picture
Hawking also has said “

Hawking also has said “ because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, which only proves that even a genius can believe ridiculous ideas. https://www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/stephen-hawking-and-god

And the author is John Lennox. And that was all I needed to see to know the article was inane and asinine at best. Like William Lane Craig, John Lennox has lost every last debate he has had against true scientists.

AJ, would you believe I am a scientist? I work at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory for the United States National Park Service as a field technician and analytical scientists. Dang that is a mouthful.

Why do you keep insisting on Religious Absolutists and Apologists would know more about science than an actual scientist? That would be like me going an asking a penguin down in Antarctica to tell me about the Bible.

John Lennox agreed to have a debate against two post-grad students in geology (I was asked but did not want to) about the Noahacian Flood Myth. Even the post-grad students completely and utterly debunked him.

AJ, you are hilarious. Again, why do you think ANY Religious Absolutist and/or Apologist would know more about science than an actual scientist? Dude...

rmfr

EDIT: fixed tags

Sheldon's picture
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 16:23

Mon, 01/07/2019 - 16:23
AJ777
"Sexual immorality prohibition covers rape, "

Not even close to being true. If it were spousal rape would have always been a crime in Christian countries and this has not been the case until very recently, and it still isn't a crime in some Christian countries. Countries that even now refuse any woman the right to divorce an abusive husband no matter how he behaves. Your claim is a sickening joke, a Lawyer's dodge, when compared to reality.

One also can't help but notice your deity condoning and even encouraging mass rapine and the sex trafficking of young virginal girls and women in the bible. To hold this vile book up as any kind of moral standard is risible, to champion it as a perfect moral standard is asinine. Have you even read the bible? If you have then your claims amount to nothing short of rank duplicity.

Cognostic's picture
Anyone as tired of this troll

Anyone as tired of this troll as I am?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.